Carlton Eugene Hooker, Jr. v. Kevin T. Hanretta, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12239
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
CARLTON EUGENE HOOKER, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KEVIN T. HANRETTA,
Individually and Officially,
KAREN MULCAHY,
Officially only,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12239 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12239
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-01614-TPB-TGW
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and J ORDAN and L AGOA , Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlton Hooker appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint
against current and former employees of the Department of Veter-
ans Affairs. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice
for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and as barred by
res judicata. We affirm.
Since 2011, Hooker has filed dozens of lawsuits against the
Department related to his termination in 2010 from his position as
a police officer at the Bay Pines facility and his ban from the facility
in 2016 for harassing and threatening employees and patients. In
July 2022, before the district court imposed a modified pre-filing
injunction that enjoined him from filing new pro se actions against
the Department “related to his employment and/or the ‘ban,’”
Hooker filed the instant Bivens action. He alleged that Kevin
Hanretta, the former Assistant Secretary for Operations, Security
and Preparedness, and Karen Mulcahy, an attorney with the Office
of Regional Counsel, violated his right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment. Hooker alleged that Hanretta deprived him of
USCA11 Case: 23-12239 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-12239 Opinion of the Court 3
rights under color of law when he “illegally banned” Hooker from
the facility in violation of a federal regulation, see 38 C.F.R. § 1.218.
Hooker alleged that Mulcahy provided “fraudulent documenta-
tion” supporting the ban. Hooker sought $1.2 million in damages
and Mulcahy’s termination.
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Feldman v. Am. Dawn, Inc., 849 F.3d 1333, 1339 (11th Cir. 2017).
The district court correctly dismissed the complaint. Insofar
as Hooker sued Hanretta and Mulcahy in their official capacities,
Bivens does not apply. See Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61,
69–71 (2001) (explaining that Bivens applies only to claims against
federal officers in their individual capacities and does not create a
cause of action for federal officers who are sued in their official ca-
pacities). Insofar as Hooker sued Hanretta in his individual capac-
ity, the district court correctly ruled that Hooker failed to plausibly
allege a due-process violation. Hooker alleged that Hanretta’s ac-
tions violated a regulation that authorized the head of a Depart-
ment facility or designee to “cause the issuance of orders for per-
sons who are creating a disturbance to depart the property.” 38
C.F.R. § 1.218. Accepting Hooker’s factual allegations as true, noth-
ing in that regulation proscribed Hanretta’s alleged conduct. In any
event, because Hooker does not challenge the ruling that he failed
to state a claim, we deem abandoned any argument he could have
made contesting that independent adverse ruling. See Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs
USCA11 Case: 23-12239 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-12239
filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro
se litigant are deemed abandoned . . . .” (citation omitted)).
Hooker argues that the district court erred by not addressing
whether he served Hanretta and Mulcahy, but the government ex-
pressly waived any challenge to service of process. See Pardazi v.
Cullman Med. Ctr., 896 F.2d 1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Objections
to service of process, . . . can be waived by the party over whom
jurisdiction is sought.”). Hooker further argues that various judges
should have recused due to bias and fraud, 28 U.S.C. § 455, but
Hooker’s disagreement with these rulings is not a valid ground for
recusal. See Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1279 (11th Cir. 2004).
We AFFIRM the dismissal with prejudice of Hooker’s com-
plaint and DENY his motion to stay this appeal pending his request
for Congressional review.
USCA11 Case: 23-12239 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --